Audio CDs- Singles

{"id":11517461964,"title":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - CD","handle":"course-337-supreme-court-meacham-vs-knolls-atomic-power-laboratory-cd","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2017-08-14T11:14:54-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:21:57-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43660272460,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442203963471,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_cff337fd-fee5-4878-8b89-9ea2426dbb7b.jpg?v=1502734919","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":309732655,"title":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - CD","handle":"course-336-munaf-v-geren-habeas-corpus-and-the-military-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 336\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.facts_of_the_case\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv ng-bind-html=\"case.facts_of_the_case\" class=\"ng-binding\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2005, Mohammad Munaf was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping by U.S. military officers acting as part of a multinational force in Iraq. Munaf's sister petitioned on his behalf for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Soon after the petition was filed, Munaf was informed that he would be tried in an Iraqi court and transferred to Iraqi custody if convicted. Munaf filed a temporary restraining order attempting to block custody transfer. After the Iraqi court sentenced him to death and the district court dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction, Munaf appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which granted an injunction against the transfer. However, the D.C. Circuit, like the district court, eventually concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Munaf's claim, basing its decision largely on the Court's ruling in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHirota v. MacArthur\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e338 U.S. 197 (1948). That decision prohibited Japanese citizens held abroad by U.S. troops from filing habeas petitions to challenge sentences handed down by a military tribunal sitting in Japan but including U.S. military personnel. Petitioner urges the Court to set aside Hirota and its ruling and to base its reasoning on a string of cases reaching the opposite result. The case will be consolidated and heard along with another D.C. case, Geren v. Omar, 07-394, in which the D.C. Circuit allowed a habeas petition by a U.S. citizen held in Iraq because he had not yet been charged or convicted by an Iraqi court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought on behalf of U.S. citizens detained overseas by American military authorities working as part of a multinational force?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/section\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.question\"\u003e\u003c\/section\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:08:28-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:08:28-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659619532,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 336","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412618319,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 336\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.facts_of_the_case\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv ng-bind-html=\"case.facts_of_the_case\" class=\"ng-binding\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2005, Mohammad Munaf was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping by U.S. military officers acting as part of a multinational force in Iraq. Munaf's sister petitioned on his behalf for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Soon after the petition was filed, Munaf was informed that he would be tried in an Iraqi court and transferred to Iraqi custody if convicted. Munaf filed a temporary restraining order attempting to block custody transfer. After the Iraqi court sentenced him to death and the district court dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction, Munaf appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which granted an injunction against the transfer. However, the D.C. Circuit, like the district court, eventually concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Munaf's claim, basing its decision largely on the Court's ruling in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHirota v. MacArthur\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e338 U.S. 197 (1948). That decision prohibited Japanese citizens held abroad by U.S. troops from filing habeas petitions to challenge sentences handed down by a military tribunal sitting in Japan but including U.S. military personnel. Petitioner urges the Court to set aside Hirota and its ruling and to base its reasoning on a string of cases reaching the opposite result. The case will be consolidated and heard along with another D.C. case, Geren v. Omar, 07-394, in which the D.C. Circuit allowed a habeas petition by a U.S. citizen held in Iraq because he had not yet been charged or convicted by an Iraqi court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought on behalf of U.S. citizens detained overseas by American military authorities working as part of a multinational force?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/section\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.question\"\u003e\u003c\/section\u003e"}

{"id":309732323,"title":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - CD","handle":"course-335-tory-v-cochran-a-free-speech-issue-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 335\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe renowned Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDid a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was that question answered by the court? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:06:48-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:06:48-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659420236,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 335","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412585551,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 335\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe renowned Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDid a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was that question answered by the court? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":309730851,"title":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanamo Or U.S. Court - CD","handle":"course-334-boumediene-v-bush-guantanimo-or-u-s-court-1-hour","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 334\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions of the Case:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the decision and conclusion statements of the case. How were all of the questions above answered, and do you agree or disagree with those answers?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:00:23-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-17T14:00:23-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["advanced","cds","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659295372,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 334","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanamo Or U.S. Court - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":-1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_65969132-3355-469d-9b54-61265601ccc8.jpg?v=1502732464"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_65969132-3355-469d-9b54-61265601ccc8.jpg?v=1502732464","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412552783,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_65969132-3355-469d-9b54-61265601ccc8.jpg?v=1502732464"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_65969132-3355-469d-9b54-61265601ccc8.jpg?v=1502732464","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 334\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions of the Case:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the decision and conclusion statements of the case. How were all of the questions above answered, and do you agree or disagree with those answers?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e"}